From 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Vigier Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Add zarb MLs html archives --- zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-March/012595.html | 95 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 95 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-March/012595.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-March/012595.html') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-March/012595.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-March/012595.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9ac714f94 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-March/012595.html @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ + + + + [Mageia-dev] oce (opencascade) license issues + + + + + + + + + +

[Mageia-dev] oce (opencascade) license issues

+ Pascal Terjan + pterjan at gmail.com +
+ Sun Mar 4 13:31:18 CET 2012 +

+
+ +
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 12:23, Barry Jackson <zen25000 at zen.co.uk> wrote:
+> On 04/03/12 11:01, Michael Scherer wrote:
+>>
+>>
+>> See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974
+>> ( notably the comment from #10 ). I would push this to non-free, because
+>> that would be a problem for a company.
+>
+>
+> OK - Is that:  "--define section=non-free/release" (I never used that
+> before)
+>
+> What about the license field in the spec? I suspect that the BS will reject
+> anything that issues an rpmlint warning - and everything I have tried so far
+> does. e.g. "LGPL-like"
+
+For non free we have generic things like Freeware.
+I haven't read the licence but if it is non free mentioning LGPL would
+be misleading
+
+> I am also somewhat confused by the modular approach used by Debian to
+> package this. It seems over-complicated, but I may be missing the point.
+> I opted for a single library, -devel and main.
+> Any thoughts on this?
+>
+> The object is to provide needed Requires/BuildRequires for FreeCAD which I
+> am also working on.
+>
+> Barry
+
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+

+ +
+More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list
+ -- cgit v1.2.1